You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.

This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.

If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.

OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.

How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.

This is like talking to a brick wall so let me leave it at this…the fact you are going against my opinion and others on this board is fine…the fact you are going against the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history is stupid.

I am not "going again the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history." He never said the choice to defer is ALWAYS correct. Thus, he never contradicted my claim that SOMETIMES choosing to defer is the wrong thing to do.

Besides you never addressed the clearly laid out problem in logic your argument fails to overcome.

Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.

This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.

If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.

OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.

How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.

This is like talking to a brick wall so let me leave it at this…the fact you are going against my opinion and others on this board is fine…the fact you are going against the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history is stupid.

I am not "going again the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history." He never said the choice to defer is ALWAYS correct. Thus, he never contradicted my claim that SOMETIMES choosing to defer is the wrong thing to do.

Besides you never addressed the clearly laid out problem in logic your argument fails to overcome.

Except you didn't claim that its sometimes the wrong thing to do, you claimed that 90% of the time that coaches don't defer b/c it's USUALLY the wrong thing to do, which is blatantly false._________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery

I feel I should weigh in on this because I am Canadian and we have been deferring kick offs for 100 years.

In Canada, not that it matters, most of the time teams defer so they can have control of the ball at the start of the final 30 minutes. The thinking is that no matter what happens in the 1st half you start with the ball in your hand.

I think in some situations it is the right thing to do especially against a weak offensive team and others it isn't when you need to put pressure on the other team.

Their are also environmental concerns in Canada because if you defer you can also pick whether you go into the wind in the 4th quarter.

This CFL education is courtesy of WindyCity._________________John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic

I feel I should weigh in on this because I am Canadian and we have been deferring kick offs for 100 years.

In Canada, not that it matters, most of the time teams defer so they can have control of the ball at the start of the final 30 minutes. The thinking is that no matter what happens in the 1st half you start with the ball in your hand. Canadian football is more offense oriented than American so this reason makes more sense North of the border.

I think in some situations it is the right thing to do especially against a weak offensive team and others it isn't when you need to put pressure on the other team. This is critically important.

Their are also environmental concerns in Canada because if you defer you can also pick whether you go into the wind in the 4th quarter. This was the only reason Ditka routinely deferred for. He knew the way the fourth quarter at Soldier Field could be because of the winds off the Lake.

Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.

This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.

If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.

OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.

How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.

This is like talking to a brick wall so let me leave it at this…the fact you are going against my opinion and others on this board is fine…the fact you are going against the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history is stupid.

I am not "going again the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history." He never said the choice to defer is ALWAYS correct. Thus, he never contradicted my claim that SOMETIMES choosing to defer is the wrong thing to do.

Besides you never addressed the clearly laid out problem in logic your argument fails to overcome.

Except you didn't claim that its sometimes the wrong thing to do, you claimed that 90% of the time that coaches don't defer b/c it's USUALLY the wrong thing to do, which is blatantly false.

How many defers were there yesterday? I saw none. It usually doesn't matter so it isn't usually wrong but sometimes it DOES matter and it is crazy to give Rodger/Brady/Breese/Manning the ball first if you don't have to. You are only asking for trouble. I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches take the ball any less than 90% of the time. Even 2 defers per week would show me to be mistaken.

I feel I should weigh in on this because I am Canadian and we have been deferring kick offs for 100 years.

In Canada, not that it matters, most of the time teams defer so they can have control of the ball at the start of the final 30 minutes. The thinking is that no matter what happens in the 1st half you start with the ball in your hand. Canadian football is more offense oriented than American so this reason makes more sense North of the border.

I think in some situations it is the right thing to do especially against a weak offensive team and others it isn't when you need to put pressure on the other team. This is critically important.

Their are also environmental concerns in Canada because if you defer you can also pick whether you go into the wind in the 4th quarter. This was the only reason Ditka routinely deferred for. He knew the way the fourth quarter at Soldier Field could be because of the winds off the Lake.

This CFL education is courtesy of WindyCity.

Muchas Gratias.

I personally am not a huge fan of deferring simply because it puts the other team in a position to dictate the pace and action of the game. Plus as an OC now if the other team scores I take my call sheet and I tear it up because I have to adjust.

The Bears with their pass rush and their defence are benefitted from having a lead so I would not defer._________________John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic

How many defers were there yesterday? I saw none. It usually doesn't matter so it isn't usually wrong but sometimes it DOES matter and it is crazy to give Rodger/Brady/Breese/Manning the ball first if you don't have to. You are only asking for trouble. I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches take the ball any less than 90% of the time. Even 2 defers per week would show me to be mistaken.

Do you realize how stupid the bolded part is, it's the same as saying "I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches defer any less than 90% of the time." Because there isn't anything that tracks it.

God what a disaster, I can't believe we deferred. Fire Lovie. Winning coaches never defer. I've heard 90% of the league doesn't defer. I mean obviously this hasn't ever been proven with stats, but I believe it. Deferring is stupid, losing coaches do it

How many defers were there yesterday? I saw none. It usually doesn't matter so it isn't usually wrong but sometimes it DOES matter and it is crazy to give Rodger/Brady/Breese/Manning the ball first if you don't have to. You are only asking for trouble. I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches take the ball any less than 90% of the time. Even 2 defers per week would show me to be mistaken.

Do you realize how stupid the bolded part is, it's the same as saying "I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches defer any less than 90% of the time." Because there isn't anything that tracks it.

I have been watching professional football for over forty years. My eyes tell me that coaches take the ball 90%+ of the time. I track it.

God what a disaster, I can't believe we deferred. Fire Lovie. Winning coaches never defer. I've heard 90% of the league doesn't defer. I mean obviously this hasn't ever been proven with stats, but I believe it. Deferring is stupid, losing coaches do it

I speak about specific things. I have no opinion on deferring to Romo and Dallas with a mediocre punter, unlike the specific instance of deferring to Rodgers and GB with a great punter.

If our defense plays like it did tonight it is not a bad idea to defer. Ditka only deferred because of weather even with an incredible defense which terrorized offenses.

Well amazingly enough the Bears lost a game they won by 19 points b/c they deferred

This game had nothing to do with THAT game. I have no problem with giving the ball first to Dallas just to Rodgers/Brady/Manning/Breese. Nothing difficult to understand if you are not trying to misunderstand.

How many defers were there yesterday? I saw none. It usually doesn't matter so it isn't usually wrong but sometimes it DOES matter and it is crazy to give Rodger/Brady/Breese/Manning the ball first if you don't have to. You are only asking for trouble. I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches take the ball any less than 90% of the time. Even 2 defers per week would show me to be mistaken.

Do you realize how stupid the bolded part is, it's the same as saying "I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches defer any less than 90% of the time." Because there isn't anything that tracks it.

I have been watching professional football for over forty years. My eyes tell me that coaches take the ball 90%+ of the time. I track it.

I have been watching the NFL for 30 years, my eyes tell me coaches defer 90% of the time. I track it.

How many defers were there yesterday? I saw none. It usually doesn't matter so it isn't usually wrong but sometimes it DOES matter and it is crazy to give Rodger/Brady/Breese/Manning the ball first if you don't have to. You are only asking for trouble. I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches take the ball any less than 90% of the time. Even 2 defers per week would show me to be mistaken.

Do you realize how stupid the bolded part is, it's the same as saying "I have yet to see anything indicating that coaches defer any less than 90% of the time." Because there isn't anything that tracks it.

I have been watching professional football for over forty years. My eyes tell me that coaches take the ball 90%+ of the time. I track it.

I have been watching the NFL for 30 years, my eyes tell me coaches defer 90% of the time. I track it.

Why would you want to make yourself look foolish?

I generally do not care about deferring just not to GB. But it is clear that it rarely happens (1 out of 10 maybe). Claiming otherwise is very odd.